John
Dryden As A Satirist
The
greatest, or at least, one of the greatest satirical writers of the English
nation is John Dryden.
He was
born on the 9th of August 1631, at Aldwincle All Saints, a village in
Northamptonshire,
and was the son of Mary and Erasmus Dryden, his mother being the
daugther
of the Rev. Henry Pickering. Both belonged to strong Puritan families, which
had
made themselves conspicuous for their opposition to the crown, and for the
zealous consistency with which they had upheld the principles of their sect.
Of
John Dryden's early youth little is known. If the inscription on the monument,
erected
by his cousin Mrs. Creed in Tichmarsh Church, is to be believed, he received
the rudiments of his education somewhere in that village. From Tichmarsh he
passed to West-minster School, where he was educated as one of the King's
Scholars by the famous Dr. Busby, a man who was destined to beconie the first
of English schoolmasters, and a man for whom Dryden entertained the most
sincere respect and veneration. Thirty years afterwards, when the
"Westminster boy had become the first poet and the first critic of his
age, he addressed his old schoolmaster in some of the most beautiful verses he
ever wrote. With exquisite taste he dedicated to him his translation of the Fifth
Satire of Persius, in which this poet records his reverence and gratitude to
Cornutus:
"Yet
never could be worthily express'd
How
deeply thou are seated in my breast
When
first my childish robe resigned the charge,
And
left me unconfin'd to live at large.
Just
at that age when manhood set me free,
I then
deposed myself and left the reins to thee.
On thy
wise bosom I repos'd my head.
And by
my better Socrates was bred.
Then
thy straight rule set virtue in my sight,
The
crooked line reforming by the right.
My
reason took the bent of thy command.
Was
form'd and polish'd by the skilful hand "
From
Westminster School young Dryden was elected to one of the Westminster
scholarships
at Cambridge, in 1650. Of Dryden 's life and study at Cambridge Mr. Collins,
in the
Quarterly Review and in his Edition of Dryden 's Satires, says: "Like
Milton before
him,
and like Gray, Wordsworth, and Coleridge after him, he appears to have had no
respect
for his teachers, and to have taken his education into bis own hands. From
inde-
pendence
to rebellion is an easy step, and an entry may still be read in the Conclusion-
book
at Trinity, which charges him with disobedience to the Vice-Master and with
contu-
macy
in taking the punishment inflicted on him. That he studied hard, however, in
his
own
way, is likely enough. He had, at all events, the credit at having read through
the
Greek
and Roman authors. He taught himself Italian and French, and laid the
foundation
of
those wide and varied, though perhaps superficial, attainments which he found
so useful
in
after-life."
In
January 1654, Dryden took the degree of Bachelor of Arts. In June of the
same
rear his father died, and he left the University to take possession of his
inheritance.
Of his
movements during the next three years nothing certain is known. About the
middle
of
1657 he went to London, where Oliver Cromwell was then in the zenith of his
power,
Dryden
's cousin, Sir Gilbert Pickering, standing high in the Protector's favour. It
is very
probable
that Dryden sought his cousin's patronage, and that he was, for a while, his
private
secretary, before he entered upon his literary career in good earnest.
In
1663, he married Lady Elizabeth Howard, sister of his friend Eobert Howard,
and
eldest daughter of the Earl of Berkshire. This marriage was unhappy , there
being
apparently
fault on both sides.
In
1668, the degree of Master of Arts was conferred on Dryden by the Archbishop
of
Canterbury, on a letter of recommendation from King Charles the Second; and two
years
later, he was made Poet Laureate and Historiojirapher Royal.
Soon
after the accession of James the Second, Dryden became a Roman Catholic,
and by
this extraordinary step drew upon himself the ridicule of the most celebrated
wits
of the
time. The Revolution deprived him of his offices of Poet Laureate and Historio-
grapher
Royal, his position becoming in consequence extremely lamentable. He had now
nothing
but his pen to depend on, and with this he endeavoured to earn his livelihood,
until
the end of his life in 1700.
He was
buried in Westminster- Abbey, that
"Temple
where the dead
Are
honoured by the nation",
on a
spot near the bones of Chaucer and Spenser, and not far from the graves of his
friend
Davenant, and his old Schoolmaster Dr. Busby.
The
first memorable verses composed by Dryden were his Panegyric on the late
Lord
Protector Oliver Cromwell, published in 1658, and these were followed by his
"Astraea
Redux", in 1660, a poem written without any compunction to celebrate the
return
of the
Saturnian age with Charles the Second.
After
having written some other panegyrical pieces, Dryden began his career as
a
dramatic poet in the thirty- second year of his age. He wrote a great deal for
the
stage,
but nothing that would have alone given him the high literary reputation that
he
now
enjoys among his countrymen. It was by his satirical and didactic poems, as
well
as by
his fables, that he achieved his proudest triumphs, all his former efforts
compared
with
these poems sinking into insignificance.
The
satirical works to which we must devote our attention are:
"Absalom
and Achitophel", part the first,
"The
Medal",
"Mac
Flecknoe",
"Absalom
and Achitophel", part the second,
and —
although this last poem is written on an entirely different plan —
"The
Hind and the Panther".
The
contents of Dryden 's satirical poems are, for a reader, at the present time,
scarcely
comprehensible
without the help of a long commentary. They are built upon an historical
basis,
of which we must make the acquaintance, if we wish to appreciate them properly.
In
1660, Charles the Second, son of the unhappy Charles the First, had returned
to his
native country and was received with a pomp absolutely unknown. The whole
nation
was in a state of hysterical excitement and of drunken joy, looking upon the
return
of
Charles the Second as a return of peace, of law, and of freedom. But it was
soon
disappointed.
The policy of the Stuart dynasty, acting upon the doctrine of Sir Robert
Filmer
who preached in his book entitled "Patriarcha, or the national power of
Kings",
the
sovereign rights of the royal despotism and the passive obedience of the
people, endea-
voured
to suppress all the religious and political liberty of England. On the other
hand,
the
adversaries of this government, the Whigs, resisted that endeavour with great
force,
not
even shrinking from the basest means in order to attain their ends. A furious
party-
spirit,
though it did not exert itself in civil war and bloodshed , raged in full
violence and
broke
out in falsehood, calumny, rancour, and fanaticism.
A wild
chaos of religious and political parties, Presbyterians, Puritans and Roman
Catholics
on the one side, Tories and Whigs on the other — entangled in a continual
quarrel
which was carefully nursed by a shameful and corrupted ministry — was the
inner
state of England after the Restoration.
In
October 1680, there passed the House of Commons a bill that became so
famous
later on under the name of Exclusion Bill.
King
Charles the Second was childless, that is to say without a legitimate son,
and
the question of tlie succession was in consequence anxiously debated. After the
King's
death,
Charles's brother, James, Duke of York, had the first claim to the throne, but
he
was a
Catholic, and many thought that the Protestant religion would never be safe
under
a
Catholic King. Every town, every county, every family was in excitement.
Schoolboys
even
were divided into angry parties. In the midst of this great agitation, the
Whigs put
forward
the Duke of Monmouth, as heir to the throne. Their leader was the Earl of
Shaftesbury,
who had formerly been president of the Privy Council of Thirty. He had
been
dismissed from his post in 1679, for having mortally offended the Duke of York,
and it
was chiefly by his exertions that the Exclusion Bill triumphantly passed the
House
of
Commons. It reached the House of Lords, to which the whole nation now looked
with
the
greatest anxiety. After a long, earnest, and occasionally furious debate, the
bill was
rejected
by a great majority.
There
has probably never been a more worthless controversy than that which at
this
time divided the English nation. But its very worthlessness afforded the most
abundant
and
appropiate materials for satire, into which Dryden, who had already suffered
much
from
the envy, insolence and even violence of his contemporaries, plunged, in 1681,
with
the
whole force and fervour of his genius. In November of this year appeared the
first
part
of ''Absalom and Achitophel". This political satire is written in the
style of a scrip-
tural
story, the names and situations of the personages being taken from the Bible,
and
connected
together by a rather slender and unimportant thread of narrative.
Absalom
is J;imes, Duke of Monmouth, Achitophel is Anthony Ashley Cooper. Earl
of
Shaftesbury. It is said that this poem was written at the suggestion of Charles
the
Second
himself, who seems to have thought that the eloquence of Dryden might with
advantage
be employed to inflame the nation against the Opposition,
David,
seated on the throne of Israel, is King Charles the Second; Michal, David's
legitimate
wife remaining childless like Catherine the Queen.
Dryden
really does Charles a great deal of honour in representing him as David;
and
the reader is greatly surprised to hear Charles, disguised under the mask of
the King
of
Israel, being praised as:
"The
faith's defender and mankind's delight,
Good,
gracious, just, observant of the laws."
(Globe
Edition, v. 318—319).
"We
have already stated that Charles had no legitimate son, and that the Whigs
had
proposed the Duke of Monmouth as heir apparent. The latter was an illegitimate
son
of
Charles the Second, and enjoyed the King's love in the same high degree as
Absalom.
By the
politeness of his manners and the sweetness of his temper, he soon acquired
great
popularity
not only among the nobles and ministers of state, but also among the majority
of the
people, and so much the more because he had, by several warlike enterprises,
proved
himself to be a gallant soldier and a good stratagist. In 1672 and 1673,
Monmouth
commanded
the British troops sent to act with the French forces against Holland, and here
he won
great fame by his bravery at the siege of Mastricht When, some years
afterwards,
the
British auxiliaries were acting with the Dutch against the French, Monmouth
again
fought
courageously at the head of the troops in the battle of St. Denis, August 1678.
On his
return from the Continent, he was received with enthusiasm by the whole nation,
and he
became forthwith the most popular man in the kingdom. His illegitimate birth
was
soon forgotten, and he was now generally regarded as the champion of the true
religion
and the rightful heir to the British throne. The interest which the populace
took
in
Monmouth was kept up by every artifice. And soiiiO chiefs of the opposition,
with
the
Earl of Shaftesbury at their head, urgently pressed him to embrace the
opportunity
of
usurping the right of succession on his father's death. We have already
observed the
success
of this bold enterprise.
Such
then are the historical facts, which Dryden made use of in his satirical poem
of
Absalom and Achitophel. This poem exposing the base machinations of the
seditious
party
and their chief, undoubtedly contributed to a considerable extent to the
victory
which
King Charles the Second won over the "Exclusionists"; but on the
other hand,
Dryden
cannot be acquitted of the charge of exaggeration, both in painting the
baseness
of the
conspirators, and in endeavouring to represent Monmouth as only led away
by the
intrigues of selfish counsellors. Dryden had a great interest in treating the
Duke
in a manner which he knew would please the King. Hi>tory tells us that
Monmouth
was
not only led astray by the machinations of Shaftesbury, but that the increase
of his
ambition
was also to be ascribed to the unbounded love and indulgence which the King
bore
to this young favourite. Thus the latter began by degrees to regard himself as
a
legitimate
offspring of the royal family. "Nothing was withheld from him", says
Macaulay
"but
the crown; nor did even the crown seem to be absolutely beyond his reach. The
distinction
which had most injudiciously been made between him and the highest nobles
has
produced evil consequences "When a boy he had been invited to put on his
hat in
the
presence chamber, while Howards and Seymours stood uncovered round him. When
foreign
princes died, he had mourned for them in the long purple cloak, which no other
subject,
except the Duke of York and Prince Rupert, was permitted to wear. It was
natural
that these things should lead him to regard himself as a legitimate prince of
the
House
of Stuart" (History of England, p. 247).
Dryden
is undoubtedly too partial to Monmouth, on account of his personal obli-
gations,
not only to the King, but still more to the Duchess of Monmouth; for the latter
had
been one of his earliest, truest, and most zealous friends. Therefore, we cannot
entirely
assent to his vindication of Monmouth's character:
""Tis
juster to lament him than accuse", (v. 486).
As to
Dryden's description of the rancours of the opposition and the leading
members
of the Whig- party, it is easy to imagine that we cannot always expect an
unbiassed
treatment from a man whose judgment was so much influenced by party-
spirit.
' The Earl of Shaftesbury, it is true, was a man of an intriguing and ^elfish
nature,
but he was never such a monster of baseness and dishonesty as Achitophel/ under
whose
name he is introduced. We may here again refer td Macaulay, who, though '
himself
a
member to the Whig- party, gives an impartial account of Shaftesbury's
character.
He
says in his History: "Ashley (that is Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of
Shaftesbury) with
a far
stronger head, and with a far fiercer and more earnest ambition (than the Duke
of
Buckingham
whom he has just spoken of), had been equally versatile. But Ashley's ver-
satility
was the effect, not of levity, but of deliberate selfishness. He had served and
betrayed
a succession of governments. But he had timed all his treacheries so well,
through
all
revolutions, his fortunes had constantly been rising" (History of England,
p. 210). This
judgment
is a hard one, but it is mild, when compared with that which Dryden passed
on
Shaftesbury's character in "Absalom and Achitophel":
"Of
these the false Achitophel was first,
A name
to all succeeding ages curst:
For
close designs, and crooked counsels fit,
Sagacious,
bold, and turbulent of wit.
Restless,
unfixed in principles and place,
In
power unpleased, impatient of disgrace;
A
fiery soul, which working out its way.
Fretted
the pigmy body to decay
And
o'er -informed the tenement of clay.
A
daring pilot in extremity,
Pleased
with the danger, when the waves went high,
He
sought the storms; but, for a calm uniit,
iWould
steer too nigh the sands to boast his vit".
(v.
150-162)
Dryden,
morec7er, charges Shaftesbury with having taken part in the invention
of the
chimerical Popis^h Plot, a conspiracy which, according to rumour, was being
prepared
against the Chvrch and the constitution of England. But this charge, imputed
to
Shaftesbury, is nothii^g but a slanderous invention, for Shaftesbury prosecuted
the
discoveries
of the Popish (Plot with all the ardour of his vehement nature.
The
most objectionable and ribald attack made by Dcyden on Shaftesbury,
however,
is that through che contemptuous illusion to the bodily infirmities of his son,
whom he
calls an "unfeatl|ered two-legged thing and a shapeless lump", (v.
170, 172).
A poet
ought never to desc'end to such gross personalities. ___-
During
the war aga'nst Holland, in 1673, Dryden himself, in an epilogue to his
tragedy
of "Amboyna", endeavoured to inflame the national feeling against
Holland by
advocating
an alliance of the kings of England and France against the Dutch. Here he says:
^'Yet
is thbir empire no true growth, but humour
And
only two Kings' touch can cure the tumour". (v. 17—18).
And
Dryden concluded the same epilogue with a reference to the words "Delenda
est
Carthago" that Shaftesbury had spoken in Parliament in 1673:
"All
loyal English will, like him, conclude
Let
Caesar live, and Carthage be subdued".
Nevertheless,
Dryden attacks Shaftesbury a few years afterwards for taking part
in the
same deed, which he had once praised so enthusiastically, for he declares:
. . .
"the triple bond he broke
The
pillars of the public safety shook,
And
fitted Israel for a foreign yoke." (v. 175—177.)
After
all this, it is strange and remarkable that the second edition of "Absalom
and
Achitophel" contains a few lines in which Shaftesbury is highly praised as
a judge:
"Yet
fame deserved no enemy can grudge;
The
statesman we abhor, but praise the judge.
In
Israel's courts never sat an Abbethdin*)
With
more discerning eyes or hands more clean,
Unbribed,
unsought, the wretched to redress.
Swift
of despatch and easy of access". (v. 186—191.)
*)
Abbethdin was president of the Jewisli judicature (Christie, p. 97).
It is
difficult to understand why Diyden should have insemed these lines of
strong
praise; but whatever may have induced him to make this addition, it shows that
Shaftesbury's
only fault was restless and unscrupulous ambition and -that he cannot have
been
such a monster of impudence as Dryden represents him.
Others
of the party of Monmouth or rather of the ( pposition party were
stigmatized
with a severity only inferior to that applied to Achitop^iel. Among these, one
especially
deserves our attention; and that is the Duke of Buckingham, represented as
Zimri.
George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, was one of the jive ministers known in
1671
by the appellation of the Cabal, a word formed from tly„ initial letters of
their
names
Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale, Buckingham had,
together
with Samuel Butler, the author of Hudibras, Thomas Sprat, and Martin Clifford,
caricatured
Dryden, and ridiculed his heroic rhymed plays in a f^irce called "The
Rehearsal".
The
main figure is Bayes, none other than Dryden himself. H^s personal
peculiarities and
manners,
his dress even, his habitual phrases, and customary ^exclamations were
faithfully
imitated.
"The Rehearsal" had immense success, and Bayes wjis ever afterwards
Dry den's
nickname.
Dryden, who later on showed so much irritation and impetuosity under attacks,
made
no immediate reply to Buckingham: on the contrary, h(3 admitted that the
Rehearsal
was
full of many a good hit. But though he endeavoure(^ to show great indifference,
he did
not forget having been publicly ridiculed. When, however, he took his revenge,
he
treated Buckingham with mercy rather than with these;^variety due to the
meanness of
his
character, such as history has represented him to be/
Of the
Tory chiefs, who, in the language of the ][)oem, retained their friendship
for
David at the expense of the popular hatred, Dryden presents the aged Duke of
Ormond
to us
under the name of BarziUaJ (v. 818). This nobleman (is panegyrised with a
beautiful
apostrophe
to the memory of his eldest son, the Earl of Ostory (v. 831 — 863). In addition
John
Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave, afterwards Marquis of/ Normandy, is represented as
A^rieL(v.
877); he was a poet and an especial friend ofi Dryden, and is said to have
composed
the Essay on Satire, attributed to Dryden. The/'^o celebrated statesmen
Halifax,
and
Lawrence Hyde, second son of the Lord Chancellor Clarendon, appear also in the
list,
under the names of Jotham (v, 882) and Hushai" (v^ 888).
The
poem of "Absalom and Achitophel" was with all its faults a
masterpiece , and
it at
once placed Dryden far above his poetical contemporaries.
Setting
aside the political tendency and the vai/ious violent attacks showered on
his adversaries,
we cannot but admit that the poem is a splendid piece of poetry; and
everybody
must acknowledge the beauty, if not the ju^ice, of the satire. Correct rhyme,
harmony
of versification, masculine energy of language, all these beauties, with which
the
poem abounds, had hitherto been unknown in English satirical poetry. The
unrivalled
portraits
of Achitophel and Zimri, the speech of Achitophel, when tempting his faltering
disciple,
young Absalom, to conspire against King David, are passages full of lofty
poetry
almost unparalleled in English literature. They are now - a - days declaimed by
schoolboys
who rejoice at the music and harmony of the lines, but who know little about
the
exasperating political struggles on the Popish Plot, and about the political
career of
Shaftesbury
and Buckingham.
The
success of this bold political satire was almost unprecedented. It was hailed
by one
side with the greatest enthusiasm and became at once immensely popular: its
sale
being
for those days enormous.
But
on' the other hand, the Whig- party did not submit to these attacks with
patience
and forbearance, and many replies to "Absalom and Achitophel" were
soon
published.
One of the first was a poem written by the Duke of Buckingham under the
title:
"Poetic Reflections on a late poem entitled Absalom und Achitophel".
Samuel Pordage
too,
an inferior dramatic writer, published a counter - allegory bearing the title:
"Azaria
and
Hushai"; and Elkanah Settle, a former enemy, published a poem entitled
"Absalom
Senior,
or Achitophel Transposed". But all these replies have deservedly sunk into
oblivion.
"Absalom
and Achitophel", great as was its success, failed in its main purpose.
Shaftesbury
had been indicted for high treason, arrested, and committed to the Tower;
and
there is no doubt that Dryden wrote and published his satire in order to
increase the
public
feeling against the Whig leader on the eve of his trial, and to cause the grand
jury
to pass sentence of death upon him. But the poem was not crowned with the
success
which
the King's friends had expected. The grand jury threw out the bill of high
treason,
November
24 th, 1681; and Shaftesbury was acquitted and set at liberty. The people in
and
around the court testified their joy by the loudest possible acclamations, and
these
acclamations
were echoed throughout the city.
To
celebrate their victory the Whigs struck a medal bearing on one side the head
and
name of Shaftesbury. On the reverse was represented a sun, obscured by a cloud,
rising
over the Tower and the City of London : the date of the rejection of the bill,
and the motto "Laetamur" being likewise on this side. Impressions of
this medal were distributed
among
the Whigs, and much to the chagrin of the Tories, all good Whigs took care to
wear
the ornament ostentatiously displayed on their breasts.
The
Tories, baffled and angry, did not know what course to pursue. In this
perplexity,
the King himself is said to have appealed to his Laureate to bring into play
once
more those weapons of invective and ridicule, which he had already wielded with
such
signal success.
Thereupon
Dryden wrote "The Medal, a Satire against Sedition", which was
published
in March, 1682, with the appropriate motto:;
''Per
Grraium populos mediaeque per Elidis urbem
Ibat
ovans divumque sibi poscebat honorem".
This
poem is much shorter and much graver than "Absalom and Achitophel",
extending
to little more than 300 lines, and containing none of the picturesque
personalities which had adorned its predecessor. The medal, struck in honour of
Shaftesbury's acquittal, is called the "Polish Medal" (v. 3), by
which Dry den intended to throw further ridicule upon that politician's name. The
poem refers to a rumour, then running through England, that Shaftesbury aspired
to the crown of Poland, when John Sobiesky was elected in 1674. Whether this
reproach was a just one we may leave undiscussed, but certainly such a rumour
was welcome to Dryden, for it enabled him to cast ridicule upon Shaftesbury,
rendering him at the same time contemptible for his political rancours. We find
in this satire too several exaggerations, caused by personal hatred and
political bitterness Shaftesbury, as we have already mentioned, was
unscrupulous about the means he used to attain his ends, but the insinuation
made about him of ' bartering his venal wit for sums of gold" (v. 32) is
entirely without foundation. On the contrary, there are proofs extant from
impartial contemporaries, stating that Shaftesbury, among whose many faults
corruptibility cannot be reckoned, while a member of the Council of State,
never received any salary. Nor is there any truth in the imputation of
"casting himself into the saint -like mould" (v. 33), because he was
a member of Barebone's parliament. This was an assembly, which pretended to
high sanctity and which Oliver Cromwell had denominated his council. Among the
men of this assembly, was a man named Barebone, much noted for his long
prayers, sermons, and harangues, and from this member, the populace nicknamed
the assembly "Barebone's Parliament". It is true that in tiiis
Parliament Shaftesbury was an active member of a numerous moderate party, which
ultimately prevailed over the fanatics; but the insinuation that Shaftesbury's ''lewdness"
(v. 37) was the cause of his separation from the saints, is equally devoid of foundation.
We see
that Dryden again boldly throws out accusations, which, although without
any
proof, were nevertheless welcome for the purpose of painting Shaftesbury in
colours
as
black as possible.
The
minds of men, in those days, appeared so much soured with that pernicious
spirit
of passion and prejudice, that there was one kind of sophistry practised
largely by
both
sides, and this was, to take any scandalous story that had ever been whispered
about,
or invented by the restless ambition of rancorous politicians, for an undoubted
truth,
and to make further suitable speculations on it. Such was also Dryden's
practice,
and it
is a pity that an author so highly gifted should often allow himself to stoop
to
deeds
of such a mean character.
In the
lines 65 and 66 Dryden once more denounced Shaftesbury for his policy
in the
continental wars:
"Thus
framed for ill, he loved our triple hold,
(Adrice
unsafe, precipitous, and bold)".
When
speaking of "Absalom and Achitophel" we have already mentioned this
reproach,
which contrasts so much with his former eulogies on the same matter.
Besides
Shaftesbury, there are two other persons, members of the Whig-party,
whom
Dryden most undeservedly attacked: Thomas Pilkington and Samuel Shute. These
two
sheriffs of London are called by Dryden "gouty hands" (v. 182)
hindering the head
from
executing its designs. This head was Sir John Moore, a Tory, who had been
elected
Lord
Mayor, and who was a zealous supporter of the court. Pilkington, who was a very
violent
man, is said to have broken out in these terms, when it was first reported that
the
Duke of York intended to leave Scotland: "He has already burned the city;
and is he
now
coming to cut all our throats?" (Hume, History, vol. YHI, p. 177).
The
language of "the Medal" is vigourous, its versification less lively
than that
of
"Absalom and Achitophel", but not less carefully written.
It
was, of course, not to be expected that so undisguised an outburst of political
wrath
should be quietly received by the other side; so much the more, as the epistle
to
the
Whigs prefixed to the poem, was a direct challenge, which could not remain
unanswered.
Many
replies came forth from new and from old antagonists. We will only mention
"the
Medal
Reversed" by Pordage, and "the Medal of John Bayes" by Shad
well. The latter
was of
the greatest importance. The author reproaches Dryden with all sorts of
disgraceful
conduct
and unfortunate experiences. The attack ] passed all bounds of decency,
especially
as
Dryden had not provoked Shadwell by any personal offence. They had formerly
been
li
lends, they had in conjunction with Crowne written a severe criticism on the
"Empress
of
Marocco", a very dissolute play, composed by Elkanah Settle in 1673; and
Dryden had
furthermore
written a prologue for Shad well's play "The True Widow." But their
friendship
turned
into political antagonism, when they were engaged on opposite sides in the
fierce
struggles
between the Whigs and Tories.
While
Dryden took but little notice of all the other attacks, he was yet so incensed
by
thut of Shadwell, that he sat doAvn to write an immediate reply. In October
1682,
his
new satirical poem was published under the title of "Mac Flecknoe, or a
Satire on
the
True Blue Protestant Poet". Blue was the colour of the badge assumed by
the
Tories
or Church Party. These called their adversaries True Blues, because the latter
were
not satisfied Avith being Protestants merely, as the churchmen were, but must
be
true Protestants, implying the others to be false ones, and not quite Papists
(Collins,
p. 127).
Shadwell
was not insignificant as a dramatist. He had endeavoured to follow the
principles
of Ben Jonson, and he had a happy knack of detecting or imaging the oddities
which,
after Ben's example, he called "humours". Yet he is now only known as
the
hero
of "Mac Flecknoe". When reading this poem, we must acknowledge that
there are
fewer
exaggerations and intentional perversions of historical facts than in the two
satires
already
mentioned.
Dryden,
it is true, seveiely treats Shadwell. but bis rude proTOcation did not
deserve
less severe treatment. Flecknoe, a poet who bad died in 1678, is represented as
the
L'ing of the realm of '"KoDsense", and as a person "who bad
arrived at the highest
perfection
of stupidity and dulness, and -who had initiated bis son and heir into tl e
same
mysteries.
This son is Shadwell, who therefore bears the name of Uac Flecinoe; Mac
signifying
"son" in the Celtic language.
Flecknoe
was an Irish priest and insignificant poet, whose name would scarcely
have
been handed down to posterity, had be not been mentioned by Dryden in this
satire.
This
king "through all the realms of Nonsense absolute" (v. 6) has grown
old
and is
" worn out with business" (v. 9) and therefore resolves to surrender
the care of the
realm
to his son Shadwell, whom, of all his numerous progeny, he thought to be the
most
fit "to reign and wage immortal war with wit" (v. 12).
Eichard
Flecinoe seems to have been a person ridiculous rather as a poet than
contemptible
as a man. Nor is it known that Flecknoe, while alive, had given Dryden
any
ofFence : but it is certain that his "Epigrams", published in 1670,
contain some lines
addressed
to Dryden of a most complimentary character, beginning: "Dryden the Muses'
darling
and delight" (Christie, p. 142).
Therefore,
in our opinion, Dryden has treated the latter too severely, although he
only
presents him as an accessory person, the main force of the satire being
concentrated
upon
Shadwell. /But more especially must we censure Dryden for his too severe
treatment
of
Fleck^noe, because the latter had died not long before and was no longer able
to defend
himself.'
Dryden then alludes in his satire to Shadwell's plays; but "Psyche",
"the Miser"
and
the "Humorists" are plays of Shadwell's which are, by no means, so
insipid and stale
as the
censure of Dryden represents them to be. There Shadwell is charged with having
pilfered
from the works of Sir George Etherege, presented under the name of Gentle
George,
a light poet of the Eestoration, who wrote very popular comedies full of spirit
and
wit. This accusation although without foundation is not an invention of Dryden
's,
but
was often repeated at that time.
Dryden
further ridicules Shadwell's pretensions to copy Ben Jonson in the
following
lines: "Nor let false friends seduce thy mind to fame
By
arrogating Jonson's hostile name;
Let
father Flecknoe fire thy mind with praise
And
uncle Ogleby*) thy envy raise
Thou
art my blood where Jonson has no part:
What
share have we in nature or in art?
Where
did his wit on learning fix a brand
And
rail at arts he did not understand?" (v. 171 — 178).
*)
Ogleby, originally a dancing-master, translated Homer, Yirgil and Aesop, and
was the author of
other
poems and of a History of China. (Christie p. 147).
The
author's criticism on Shadwell's plays was both unsparing and crushing:
"Thy
tragic muse gives smiles, thy comic sleeps" (v. 198)
and
when he asserts:
"With
whatever gall thou setst thyself to write,
Thy
inoffensive satires never bite" (v. 199 — 200),
we
cannot help doubting that these words come from the poet's heart.
Though
Dryden's revenge was extremely successful, he yet had the mortification
afterwards
of seeing Shad well promoted to the office of Poet Laureate, when, after the
accession
of William the Third to the throne, he was deprived of the laureateship as well
as of
the office of Historiographer Royal.
With
respect to the literary part of "Mac Flecknoe", we can only say that
it
deserves
full praise. It differs from the others which Dryden published at that time
being
rather
a literary satire, although it was provoked by political and personal struggles
alone.
Dryden
applies a worthy, lofty and elevated style not to subjects deserving such
emphatical
language,
but to subjects of insignificant importance, in order to increase, by such a
contrast,
the ridicule on the persons who are attacked.
Just a
month after the publication of Mac Flecknoe appeared a second part of
"Absalom
and Achitophel". The greater part of this poem, which is more than 1100
lines
long,
is composed by the poet Nahum Tate, a strong Tory, who translated the Psalms
into
verse, and who became Poet Laureate on the death of Shadwell. Dryden only con-
tributed
about two hundred lines, but he carefully revised the whole, and improved parts
of
Tate's work. His contribution begins with the lines: "Next these, a troop
of busy spirit
press"
(v. 310) and ends: "To talk like Doeg, and to write like thee", (v.
509).
It is
chiefly his share of the poem to which we must pay attention. Without
any
great difficulty an attentive reader will feel the passionate irritation, which
distinguishes
the
language of the great satirist from that of his fellow- writer.
Dryden,
after having disposed of Ferguson, Forbes, Johnson, Pordage, and other
adherents
of the Whig party with a curt indifference, which stings on account of its
contemptuous
brevity, once more concentrates the main-force of his satire upon Shadwell
and
Elkanah Settle, the author of the "Empress of Marocco", a drama which
had provoked,
as we
have seen, a severe criticism written by Dryden in conjunction with Shadwell
and
Crowne.
These passages are unparalleled for invective; and it was poured forth in an
unstinted
fashion upon the heads of his poetical adversaries. In English literature, nay,
in the
literature of all civilized nations, there is scarcely any passage, where a
poet's
personal
enmity so much surpasses the limits of poetical and literary controversy as
here.
Shadwell
and Settle are introduced under the names of Og and Doeg with the following
words :
"Two
fools that crutch their feeble sense on verse
Who by
my Muse to all succediug times
Shall
live in spite of their own dogrel rhymes," (v. 409—411).
For
these lines, though very severe, nobody will blame the poet; but soon all
reflection
and moderation are carried away by the extreme passion and bitterness of his
heart.
It is with loathing that we read the following lines:
"Let
him (Settle) be gallows free by my consent,
And
nothing suffer, since he nothing meant;
Hanging
supposes human soul and reason.
This
animal's below committing treason " (v. 431—435).
For
this base onslaught there is no excuse whatever. But when turning to Shad-
well,
his calumny grows even worse. Not satisfied with having successfully ridiculed
him as
a
poet, he denounces him as a drunkard and profligate:
"Og
from a treason -tavern rolling home
Round
as a globe, and liquored every chink," (v. 458—459)
and
further: "For every inch that is not fool is rogue:
A
monstrous mass of foul corrupted matter." (v. 463—464).
Shadwell
had made no reply to "the Medal", and Dryden, therefore, had no
reason
for
assailing him again in a manner so utterly unworthy of a poet. Having dealt
with
both
these victims, this part of the poem concludes with some contemptuous lines on
the
character
of their poetry. I cannot myself help thinking that there is always lurking at
the
bottom of these side -blows, the poet's extreme jealousy of all those who dared
to
be
liis literary competitors. Whenever he has finished off a political adversary,
who is of
the
same time a poet, he never fails to deal a few side -blows on his literary
occupation;
or, to
speak more precisely, he pretends to strike only an indirect blow. In his inner
heart,
however, he is much more irritated by their writing poems and plays like
himself,
than
by their political opposition. To men of letters who could not be expected to
rise
to
such a height that they were likely to become his rivals, he was not merely
just, but
even,
as is generally acknowledged, often a friend and benefactor. But to every
writer
who
rose above mediocrity, and came near his own level, he became an enemy, either
opened
or disguised. Polemics so grossly unjust, are far below the dignity of poetry;
and
even
the Quarterly Reviewer, who, throughout his essay, shows himself too zealous an
ad-
mirer
of Dryden, cannot but acknowledge that in treating Shadwell he seems to descend
to the
level of the object he despises. (Qu. Rev. p. 316).
But on
the other hand, it is incomprehensible how the same critic can bring
himself
to defend, nay even to praise the poet for the above mentioned verses on
Settle,
which,
in his opinion, "unite in an equal degree poignant wit with boisterous
humour,
and
are in every way worthy of his great powers." (Qu. Rev. p. 316).
These
then were the four powerful satires with which Dryden standing in the
middle
of that exasperating political struggle, had. struck such deadly blows on his
political
antagonists,
the Whig- party. He had spread terror and destruction through the ranks
of his
adversaries, and finding no other opponent courageous enough to again challenge
tlie
merciless weapoDs of so dangerous and unscrupulous an enemy, his satirical pen
had
rest
for a while. For want of opponents it rested forever, giving birth to no satire
directly
political. There is, however, one poem of Dryden's that is written, as has been
already
mentioned, on a plan entirely different from those four political or personal
satires,
but
which notwitlistanding deserves our attention here.
This
poem, which is to be ranked among his brilliant productions, is "The Hind
and
the Panther".
It was
written immediately after the poet's conversion to the Roman Catholic faith, '
with
the intention of glorifying his newly adopted creed and of satirizing, at the
same
time,
the innumerable sects opposed to the Popish Church. It is partly satirical,
partly
didactic,
and may best be designated as a satirico- didactic allegory.
Politics
and religion were, throughout that period of English history, closely con-
nected,
religious interests being mingled with all the political controversies of those
days.
There
were then various religious sects, Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists,
Socinians
and
Quakers, who setting aside the Church of Rome and the Church of England,
persecuted
each
other with no less intolerance than the political parties did.
We
will not enter here into the question so much debated on, whether Dryden's
change
of religion was sincere. Samuel Johnson, Sir Walter Scott, the Quarterly
Reviewer
(Mr.
Collins) and Mr. Saintsbury on the one hand, have endeavoured to prove that it
was
sincere;
but on the other hand. Lord Macaulay and Mr. Christie have called its sincerity
into
question.
Whatever
may be said of it, the eloquent defence of the Church of England so
warmly
urged in "Religio Laici", published a few years before "the Hind
and the Panther"
exhibits
too incomprehensible a contrast with this splendid eulogy on the Roman Church.
.
"The
Hind and the Panther", which consists of three parts, appeared in 1687. In
the
preceding year Dryden had retired from London to a country-seat in
Northamptonshire
near
Aldwinkle, his native place, where this poem was completed. The Hind,
"milk-white,
immortal
and unchanged", although always under the peril of dying, is chosen to
represent
the
Roman Church; the Panther, "sure the noblest next the Hind, and fairest
creature of
the
spotted kind" (part I, v. 327) is the Church of England. The Hind is
pursued by all
the
fierce beasts of the forest and the field; the bloody bear, the bristled boar,
the insatiate
wolf,
false Reynard, the buffoon ape, all of them cast wild glances of wrath and
furious
enmity
upon the innocent Hind. All these animals are types of the innumerable sects of
the
English Protestants: Independents, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Socinians, and
Free-
thinkers.
Only the timorous hare, the Quaker, thinks it best to observe a safe
neutrality.
Of all
the denizens of the forest there is but one beast that is equally hated and
perse-
cuted
and that is the Panther, representing the Church of England. The Hind comes
down
to a spring to drink, but fearing her enemies, who are likewise all assembled
there
for
the same purpose, she does not approach, until the Lion, her friend and
protector —
none
other than King James the Second — summons her to come near. The crowd stands
amazed
at finding her, on a nearer view, quite a different animal from that which her
enemies
had endeavoured to depict her:
"Lord,
how they all admired her heavenly hue". (v. 543).
The
likeness is easily understood. The Roman Catholic Church, up to that time,
calumniated
and hated for want of a better acquaintance, is now under the protection of
King
James the Second. She is thus able to display all her advantages, and can
therefore
afford
her numerous adversaries an opportunity of judging how much she has hitherto
been
calumniated
by the Presbyterians and other enemies.
When
now the herd, having quenched its thirst, withdrew "to ferny heaths and to
their
forest lair", (I, v. 555) the Hind and the Panther remain alone, and they
at once
enter
into a long discussion about their common dangers, the controversies still to
be settled
between
the two respective creeds, and similar religious topics then occupying public
interest.
Having
finished the second part, Dryden relapses in the 3rd part into personal
satire,
and alters the tone towards the Protestant dissenters, who were in sympathy
with
a
change in James the Second's policy.
In the
beginning of his reign King James had endeavoured to effect a kind of
alliance
between the Catholic and Protestant Churches, in order to make common cause
against
all
kinds of Dissenters. With respect to this policy of the King we may observe
that
throughout
the first two parts of the "Hind and the Panther" the Protestant
sects are all
treated
with disrespect and indignation, while the Church of England is treated with a
feeling
of mercy and compassion, rather than severity. But finding the Churchmen
intract-
able,
the King tried to conciliate the Dissenters, and issued that famous Declaration
of
Indulgence,
suspending all the laws that had been executed with the greatest rigour against
eveiy
class of Dissenters.
Drydeo
having retired from the scene of politics to the silence of Rushton in
Northamptonshire,
learned somewhat late the news of the King's change of policy, but not
too
late for his industrious pen to correct the mistake he had made. He took care
at once
to
diminish both his praises of the Protestants and his satires on the
Nonconformists.
Two
considerable passages were inserted: the story of the Swallows told by the
Panther,
and the Hind's reply to this story, the fable of the Doves.
The
story of the Swallows is one of the liveKest of all Dryden's pieces of
narration,
and
deserves full praise for its poetical diction A few lines are worth quoting:
"New
blossoms flourish and new flowers arise,
As God
had been abroad, and walking there
Had
left his footsteps and reformed the year.
The
sunny hills from far were seen to glow
With
glittering beams, and in the meads below
The
burnished brooke appeared with liquid gold to flow".
(in,
V. 553-558).
From
the ironical parable told by the Panther, the Hind observes how the former
is
disposed towards her; her patience therefore becomes exhausted, or — to drop
the
similitude
— the King, when finding the Protestants too obstinate towards his intentions,
changes
his policy:
"The
matron wooed her kindness to the last,
But
could not win; her hour of grace was past.
Whom
thus persisting when he could not bring
To
leave the Wolf and to believe her King,
She
gave her up, and fairly wished her joy
Of her
late treaty with her new ally''. (in, v. 892—897).
In
reply to the story of the Swallows, another satirical fable is told by the Hind:
the
Fable of the Doves.
James
the Second is represented there as a plain good man "who inured to
hardships
from his early youth, took possession of his just estate". Near the house
in
which
he lived there were established "a sort of doves", but these animals
"who cross the
proverb,
and abound with gall" (v. 947) are unworthy of the love and indulgence
which
their
master bears to them. These doves who abuse their owner's kindness solmuch, are
the
clergy of the Church of England.
We see
how much the obedient poet's feelings had changed against the Protestants,
just
as his sovereign's policy had done. Besides these doves, the same owner had
behind
his
house another farm, wherein "his poor domestic poultry" representing
the Roman
Catholic
priests were fed. These "pampered pigeons" beheld those with
malignant eyes,
but
feeling too feeble to fight against them, they tried to make allies of their
former
enemies.
After a grave consultation all agreed to request the assistance of the Buzzard,
which he
willingly grants. The owner, seeing his indulgence so grossly abused,
interferes
by a
stratagem, which he thinks will best settle all quarrels Finding that it was
but a
want
of freedom that had hitherto made his fowls envious of one another, he issues a
gracious
edict granting liberty to all of them:
"He
therefore makes all birds of every sect
Free
of his farm, with promise to respect
Their
several kinds alike, and equally protect". (v. 1244—1246).
It is
not difficult to understand that it is the Declaration of Indulgence, to which
these
lines of praise allude. We must acknowledge that Dryden cleverly understood how
to
amend the mistake which he had made, while the poem was in progress.
By the
Buzzard is meant Gilbert Burnet, then residing in Holland; and having the
confidence
of the Prince of Orange, he was afterwards made Bishop of Salisbury. He was
very
celebrated at the same time as an extempore preacher, and known as the author
of a
very
large number of theological and political writings But notwithstanding his
merits he
was
not free from the faults so frequent in those troublesome days. His extreme
vanity
and
the provoking audacity of his attacks often made him the target for mockery and
hot
controversy.
Yet Burnet, although he deserved severe censure in many respects was by
no
means so full of rancour and deceitfulness as Dryden represents him to be in
the role
of the
Buzzard.
Burnet
repaid Dryden's satire by branding him in his History of his Own Time
(folio
- edition 1, 269), published after his death in 1723, as a ''monster of
immodesty and
of
impurit}^ of all sorts", a censure specially referring to Dryden's plays.
Another
antagonist of Dryden's, named Stillingfleet , Bishop of Worcester, is but
slightly
mentioned in the third part of ''the Hind and tlie Panther". Together with
Tillotson
and
Burnet he was at the head of that school of divines, who were for widening the
basis
of the
Church of England, and who were likewise desirous of admitting a large portion
of the
Dissenters into their community. A severe controversy between Dryden and
Stillingfleet
had passed before the publication of "the Hind and the Panther", and
Dryden
had
been worsted through the wider experience of his opponent.
It is
not a matter of wonder then that the appearance of "the Hind and the
Panther"
excited a great clamour against the author. His recent conversion had naturally
increased
the ire of his opponents, and given them much assistance for an attack upon him
Of the
many satirical replies which were published, that which most deeply affected
Dryden
was the joint production of two young men. Charles Montague, afterwards Earl
of
Halifax, and Matthew Prior wrote a burlesque together on Dryden's poem, under
the
title
of "the Hind and the Panther transversed to the story of the Country Mouse
and the
City
Mouse", in which Mr. Christie has discovered "true wit" and the
Quarterly Reviewer
"exquisite
satire". (Qu. Rev. p. 323).
The
old poet seems to have treated both Prior and Montague with great kindness,
and he
is said to have felt their ingratitude very keenly, and to have been moved to
tears
by their fable. But, whatever may be said against Dryden's poem of "the
Hind
and
the Panther", it well deserves to be called a masterpiece both with regard
to its light
and
easy versification, and to its splendid language, which is so rich in passages
of subli-
mity
and force. In this latter respect only the first part of "Absalom and
Achitophel" is
fit to
be compared with 'the Hind and the Panther". In brilliant language Dryden
laments
that
his native country is being torn by the pernicious fury of religious
fanaticism:
"Too
boastful Britain, please thyself no more
That
beasts of prey are banished from thy shore;
The
Bear, the Boar, and every savage name.
Wild
in effect, though in appearance tame.
Lay
waste thy woods, destroy thy blissful bower.
And,
muzzled though they seem, the mutes devour".
(part
I, V. 154—159).
After
the Revolution Dryden's influence and authority declined more and more.
Deprived
of his offices of Poet Laureate and Historiographer Royal, he retired from the
battle-field
of satire, where he had indeed won a great deal of glory, though he had
experienced
at the same time much more grief and mortification.
In the
preceding pages we have endeavoured to give some outline of the historical
events
and personages reflected in Dryden's Satires; we have likewise attempted to
prove
how
often the poet's satire is decidedly unjust, and how his fervid language is
justified
by the
base machinations of his adversaries. On the other hand we have always done
full
justice
to the poetical value of his satirical poems. From this latter point of view,
we
repeat,
Dryden's satires fully deserve the praise always bestowed on them for their
elegant
diction,
their easy versification and their clear and accomplished style, which often
rises
to
pictures full of high poetical vigour and dignity. We have cited several
passages
illustrating
these merits, passages which it would be easy to increase. This poetical merit
has
never been a matter of doubt. But however great an acknowledgment Dryden's
satires
deserve
as pieces of poetry, our judgment cannot be the same, when we consider the
true
end of Satire.
Dryden
himself remarks in the preface to "Absalom and Achitophel": "The
true -L.
end of
Satire is the amendment QLvices_bx^CorrectLon'', but he did not compose his
satires
from
this point of view. Thrown off in haste to serve the purposes of the day, they are
always
inspired by hatred against individuals; and they are dictated by furious party
spirit,
not by love of virtue. Therefore, they seldom rise above the level of literary
and
political
pamphlets. None of his satires were written for mere literary fame. His
restless
and
insatiate ambition made him the blind follower of the government, and caused
him
to
wield his powerful pen either in polemical defence of his protector's
interests, or in
giving
expression to personal spite and resentment. The occasional fierceness and even
injustice
of his satire cannot indeed be denied, nor even justified by the attacks — not
always
kept within the bounds of literary polemics — of his adversaries.
The
circumstance that so much bitter invective was provoked by the fierce
onslaughts
of his antagonists, may explain ,n5ur not excuse, the poet's behaviour towards
his
personal enemies. He did not understand the art of hiding his feelings under
the
semblance
of good humour or contempt. What he lacked, was self -domination, so ^ ^
necessary
for a poet, and especially for a satirical poet. It is a pity therefore that a
man
so
highly gifted could not restrain himself from wasting his powers in political
strife and
personal
controversy. But it is just in their bold jpei;^onalitx and their close
connection
with
the religious and political quarrels, then agitating all minds, that is hidden
the secret
of the
powerful effect of Dryden's satires, on^ his contemporaries, and which makes
the poet,
as Mr.
Taine calls it: "6pineux et d^plaisant pour un lecteur moderne, mais
d'autant plus
lou6
et aim6 de son temps". (Histoire de la Litt6rature anglaise, livre HI,
chap. U, p. 234).
And so
it is indeed. Dryden's satires, though being exceedingly popular in those days
have
almost entirelj lost their interest for a modern reader, as they were written
for
r
merely temporary purposes.
In
judging him as a satirist, we cannot therefore agree with the eulogies passed
upon
him by most of his countrymen. English Literature is indebted to him for
splendid
and
manifold services, which have been generally acknowledged; "glorious
Dryden" being
regarded
by the English with a kind of grateful pietf. This piety often makes them blind
to his
faults. The first author who did not join in this paean of general praise was
Lord
Macaulay,
who condemned the boldness of the personal invectives hidden in Dryden's
satires.
By the
greater part of English critics his judgment has been decried as an unjust one,
and it
is only Mr. Christie, the learned editor of the Globe Edition, who sides with
Macaulay.
The
Quarterly Reviewer endeavours to refute Macaulay 's charges (p. 293); but it
/is
Mr. Saintsbury chiefly who makes an elaborate attempt to raise the poet as a
satirist
"to
a height which he does not, in our opinion, deserve to occupy.
We
will attempt to refute some of the assertions of Mr. Saintsbury. He says,
for
instance: "Tliere never was a satirist who less abused his power for
personal ends.
He
only attacked Settle and Shadwell after both had assailed him in the most
virulent
and
unprovoked fasliion". (Engl. Men of Letters, p. 80).
Settle
and Shadwell were by no means the only persons he attacks too severely;
and as
to the manner in which he attacks them we have already remarked that it was
in the
highest degree unwortliy of any poet.
Nevertheless
Mr. Saintsbury says, a few passages before the passage above cited:
"Dryden
on the other hand in the character of Og confines himself in the adroitest way
to
generalities", (p. 78). Furthermore the author thinks it a praise- worthy
delicacy that
Dryden
abstained from taking his revenge on Eochester, although he had cause enough*'
"But
Dryden was far too manly to war with the dead", (p. 81).
We can
easily supply Mr. Saintsbury with an example to the contrary: Why did
this
manly spirit not restrain Dryden from making Flecknoe (a poet who had been dead
but a
few years) the King of Nonsense, and from heaping ridicule on a man who was no
longer
able to defend himself?
Mr.
Saintsbury also enters into the question of the true end of satire, and how
Dryden
has fulfilled the task of a satirist. And here again we are by no means able to
agree
with his opinion. It should be borne in mind that a satire, in order to deserve
its
v^purpose
— the amendment of vices by correction — ought never to be directed against
generally
known individuals, for in this case it will never attain its object; on the
contrary,
it
will only provoke a reply still more rudely personal and fierce. Such was the
case
*) Tn
December of the year 1679, Dryden was the victim of a savage and cowardiy night
attack
in the
neighbourhood of Covent Garden, of which the instigator is believed to have
been tho poet and
profligate
John "Wihmot, Earl of Rochester. (Christie, p. XXXXI).
with
Dry den and his antagonists. It is scarcely comprehensible that Mr. Saintsbury
can
undertake
the task of defending Dryden from this reproach. But he does so, nay, he even
asserts
that the laureate's satires are the true kind of satires: '"Most satirists
are usually
prone
to the error of attacking either mere types, or else individuals too definitely
marked
as
individuals. The first is the fault of R6gnier and all the minor French
satirists, the
second
is the fault of Pope. In the first case the point and zest of the thing are apt
to
be
lost, and the satire becomes a declamation against vice and folly in the
abstract. In
the
second case a suspicion of personal pique comes in, and it is felt that the
requirement
of
art, the disengagement of the general lavr from the individual instance, is not
sufficiently
attended
to. K6gnier perhaps only in Macette, Pope perhaps only in Atticus, escape this
Scylla
and this Charybdis. But Dryden rarely or never falls into cither's grasp"
(Engl.
Men of
Letters, p. 77).
The
incorrectness of this judgment vs^ants no further proof. Are not Shaftesbury,
his
son so contemptuously alluded to, Shadwell, Settle and Burnet — a list which it
would
be
easy to increase — are not all of them individuals, too definetely marked as
individuals?
Does
Dryden not heap upon them calumnies which they never deserved?
If we
compare the modern French satire founded by Mathurin R6gnier, whom
Mr.
Saintsbury also alludes to, with those of Dryden and of England in general, we
find the
following
fact: On the one hand, the great merit of having introduced into France the
regular
satire modelled upon that of Horace and Juvenal is due to R6gnier and like his
models
he
turns away from politics and only indulges in literary and social satire. With
a piercing
eye
R6gnier is able to discern the faults and follies of his countrymen , but in
his heart he
has a
great love for them and it is with a kind of good-humoured irony that he
censures
the
faults of his contemporaries. He never abuses his satire as a weapon for
injured vanity
or
private spite.
Another
example is Moliere, whose plays, although clothed in a dramatic form,
are
most of them nothing but satires on the follies and vices of his time. And such
has
been
the character of French satire from its origin to the present day.
Dryden's
satires, on the other hand, are full of private grudges and bitterness
against
his victims, without any warm feeling towards those of his fellow- creatures
whose
condition
he intends to improve. But that is Dryden's great fault: his intention is not
to
mak&ijetter
a person , but only to take revenge and in this he has only too well succeeded.
None
of those adversaries who were bold enough to provoke his anger rose again from
the
deadly blows with which he struck them.
But
notwithstanding, Mr. Saintsbury says: "It never does for the political
satirist
to
lote his temper and to rave and rant and denounce with the air of an inspired
prophet.
Dryden,
and perhaps Dryden alone, has observed this rule. As I have just observed, his
manner
towards his subjects is that of a cool and not ill humoured scorn", (p.
76).
The
result of our deduction must therefore be: As a satirist Dryden is over- rated
by his
countrymen.
If we
ask what is the cause, it is in our opinion — in addition to the gratitude
which
the English are indebted to him as a literary reformer — to be found in the
fact
that
English literature does not possess any true satirist; at least not any
satirist fulfilling
the
above -stated task of satire. All the English satirical writers either take
part in a poli-
tical
turmoil embittered by party-spirit, or they engage in rudely personal
controversy.
The
first class has found its greatest representative in Jonathan Swift, the second
in the
hateful
satire of Alexander Pope. From this point of view we understand how an
Englishman
can
sum up his judgment on Dryden's satires in the words: ''Not only is there
nothing
better
of their own kind in English, but it may almost be said that there is notliing
better
in any
other literary language". (Engl. Men of Letters, p. 71/72).
..— We
cannot agree with such a judgment. Dryden would perhaps have been able
to
employ his strong original powers in a better way, if he had lived in a better
age. We
need
not wonder that an author, with a highly sensitive and irritable temper, living
in a
turbulent
time so full of shameless intrigues, profligacy, and selfish political
dishonesty,
plunged
courageously into what was tlien considered as the battle-field of all the
eminent
spirits
of the nation. When the minds of men are occupied to such a large extent by the
violence
of political and religious fanaticism, they will care little about the justice
or injustice
of the
means which they employ. Such was the case with Dryden's antagonists, and we
can
conceive that such attacks often excited his temper, but we have already said
that
such an explanation is not able to excuse the poet. A really great poet must be
above
such base strife.
Our
final judgment must therefore be:
John
Dryden misapplied his great original talents by treating subjects unworthy of
his
ambition, and by qualifying his thirst for personal revenge.
Thanks to:
General Library
University of California^
Berkeley J
From. Prof. V.J.Chavan
